sculpt_multires_workflow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description lists actions but lacks behavioral details such as destructiveness (e.g., 'delete_higher' removes subdivisions irreversibly), required mesh state, or error conditions. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose important operational traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a single-sentence summary followed by a bulleted list of actions with brief explanations. Each sentence adds value, and the format allows quick scanning. There is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a multi-action workflow tool, the description covers all actions and key parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, it lacks mention of the required mesh_name parameter and error handling, leaving some gaps for a fully autonomous agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning to parameters beyond the input schema, which has only titles and defaults. For example, it explains the action values, sculpt_level as target for 'set_level', and levels as subdivision count for 'setup'. However, mesh_name is not described, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well but not fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Full multi-resolution sculpting workflow control' and lists specific actions (setup, set_level, apply_base, etc.), which precisely defines what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling sculpt tools by focusing on multires workflow management.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through the listed actions (e.g., use 'setup' to add the modifier, 'set_level' to change subdivision level), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sculpt_brush_full or sculpt_remesh. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.